Zimbabwe International Journal of Open and Distance Learning
International Research Conference-Special Edition 2012
Biophysical environmental impact identification, prediction and
Determination of significance:
A review of the Zimbabwean case
1Mudzingwa M;2 Munyai B; 3Maviya J; 4Chirozva R
1Zimbabwe Open University, 4th Floor Bryanston House, G. Silundika Ave. Harare
2KLM Groundwater Consultants, P.O.Box 119, Lanseria 1748 ; South Africa
3 Environmental Unit, Southern African Power Pool, Harare
4Ministry of Environment, Chinhoyi, Zimbabwe
Email: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Abstract
This paper provides a review of the methods and approaches being employed in the Environmental Impact Assessment
(E.I.A) process in Zimbabwe for impact identification, predication and determination of significance. Given that it is
more than 10 years since the formal E.I.A. process was established in Zimbabwe and that to date several E.IAs have been
conducted, with a variety of approaches being employed, a review of these critical stages of the E.I.A. process was therefore necessary so as to reflect on strengths and weaknesses of the current practices. The review was based on the E.I.A
reports submitted to the review authority in Mashonaland West province between 2000 and 2005. The E.I.A reports were
analysed for methodologies and approaches being used for impact identification, predication and determination of significance. Results from the analysis of the reports were then compared against the standard practice as presented in
literature. Professional judgment with limited public consultation is the main approach being employed in impact predication and determination of significance. The predication of impact is based on a limited number of impact descriptors,
which are referred to inconsistently. It is concluded that the stage of impact identification, predication and determination
of significance is not adequately addressed in the reports. The paper recommends that a minimum number of impact
descriptors be made a requirement and that scaling, weighting and aggregating of impact descriptors be used to determine impact significance.
Key words: Environmental Impact assessment, biophysical impact and impact significance
Introduction
The generic Environmental Impact Assessment (E.I.A)
process was developed to assess the environmental impacts of
development projects in the following manner:1) identify the
potential impact, 2) quantify the likely nature of the impacts
and 3) evaluate the significance of the potential impacts
(Rossouw; 2003, Bojorquez-Tapia et al, 1998, Duinker &
Beanlands 1986). As the predication and assessment of impacts
is at the centre of the E.I.A process. DEAT (2002) and Lawrence
(2005) indentify impact predication and assessment as areas of
weakness in the E.IA process in addition to the lack of consensus
on methodologies and flawed interpretation of the terms.
Technical difficulties with impact prediction have also been
highlighted as one of the difficulties faced by practitioners
(DEAT; 2002 and MMET; 1998). Other problematic aspects
in the identification and assessment of impacts include; vague
descriptions, lack of systematic methods, lack of detail on criteria
used, failure to evaluate impacts according to laid down criteria
, failure to consider all phases of the project (DEAT; 2002).
Lawrence (2005) argues that based on practitioner surveys;
there is considerable room for improvement on the conceptual
understanding and operationalization of the concept of impact
significance.
requirement for certain projects in terms of the Environmental
Management Act (Chapter 20:27). To date a number of EIAs
have been conducted, with a variety of approaches being
employed. Little or no research has been conducted to review
the E.IA process in Zimbabwe. This study was therefore based
on the premise that analyzing biophysical impacts is a crucial
stage in the E.I.A process. The objective of this study was
therefore to evaluate this impact analysis stage in the EIA process
as practiced in Zimbabwe and to make necessary
recommendation for improvement.
Impact identification, predication and significance
determination
This paper makes a distinction of impact identification (the
listing of all impacts whether potential or actual resulting from
the project without any descriptions or attempt to quantify),
impact predication (evaluating impacts based on a set of impact
descriptors) and determination of significance (deciding on the
importance of the impact based on the parameters referred to
under impact predication). This distinction is desirable since it
gives an easy to follow approach of this stage of the EIA process.
E.I.A practice has been criticized for relying to a very large
extent on literature and professional judgment at the impact
analysis stage at the expense of systematic methods that consider
views and interests of potentially affected and interested parties.
The formal E.I.A process was established in Zimbabwe
through the EIA policy of 1994 (M.M.E.T; 1994) and is a
19
Zimbabwe International Journal of Open and Distance Learning
International Research Conference-Special Edition 2012
Methods commonly used for identification of impacts can
be matrices, networks, modeling, checklists and professional
judgment. Detailed discussions of these methods are provided
in for example Canter (1996), DEAT (2002) and MMET (1997)
and the most generalized impact identifications technique is the
interaction matrix (Bojorquez-Tapia et al, 1998). This method
has been widely used with reasons being that it is easy to use, it
is comprehensive, it summarizes, and communicates the impact.
Interaction matrix as a method for impact analysis was originally
developed, for large-scale projects. Its shortcomings are that it
only considers binary relations between impacts, tends to be
biased and is not explicit on significance. More importantly
matrices inhibit scrutiny in that the way interpretations and
conclusions are reached cannot be reproduced (Bojorquez-Tapi
et al, 1998).
attain a significance rating is one of the most commonly used
approaches to determining impact significance in environmental
management (Canadian Environmental Agency, 2006).
However, use of formal methods for significance testing is a
highly contested approach (Rossouw Environmental, 2003). It
has been argued that formal quantitative methods-remove the
responsibility from the authorities. Contrary to this argument
is the need to remove subjectivity in the analysis of impacts. In
addition use of formal methods makes results form the EIA
process more compatible with other environmental management
tools such as Environmental Management System (E.M.S)
hence making EIA more useful (Poder, 2006). A mixture of
quantitative methods, professional and social input into the
process of determining impact significance is desirable
(Lawrence, 2005).
Impact predication involves describing an impact by means
of a set of criteria or descriptors. These include, nature and
spatial extent of impact; impact duration, intensity, reversibility,
degree of certainty and mitigatory potential (Bojorquez-Tapia
et al, 1998, Rossouw, 2003). Bojorquez-Tapia et al (1998),
classify these criteria into basic, supplementary and quality.
Basic criteria concerns magnitude or intensity, spatial extent
and duration, supplementary criteria which entail synergism
between variables, cumulative effects and controversy
surrounding the impacts and quality criteria being the
information that supports the prediction of an impact, its
probability of occurrence, confidence of predication and the
existence and the existence of environmental standards. This
stage of impact prediction serves as the basis for determining
impact significance.
Methodology
A desktop analysis of EIA reports submitted to the
Department of Natural Resources in Mashonaland West
Province from 2000-2005 was conducted. All available 21
reports were analysed, since it was feasible to go through the
reports. The review was focused on the identification and
analysis of the biophysical impacts. With regards to the
identification of impacts, the methods outlined in MMET (1994)
were into spreadsheet as columns. Each report was then analysed
and the methods that were identified in the report entered in the
appropriate column.
Parameters for impact prediction that were sought in the
reports were as in DEAT (1992) and Rossouw (2003). These
impact descriptors were entered as columns, analysis of each
report then sought to identify the prediction parameters (s)
referred to in the report for impact significance, the following
categories were used; purely ecological, statistical methods,
society centered, reference to the framework, a vague mention
of significance, and significance not mentioned. The data was
then analysed using descriptive statistics and cross tabulations.
Trends over the years were also sought.
The focus of EIA will always narrow down to a judgement
on whether the predicted impact are significant (Duinker and
Beanlands, 1986 in DEAT 2002, Canadian Environmental
Agency, 2006). A significant impact is one where anticipated
future environmental conditions, resulting from the proposed
action differ from those otherwise expected from normal change,
and where this anticipation raises serious concerns among a
professional or lay section of the society (DEAT; 2002).
Lawrence (2005) summarizes significance determination as
making judgments on what is important , desirable or acceptable.
Environmental significance should therefore be viewed as an
anthropocentric concept, which uses judgment and values to
the same or greater extent than science-based criteria and
standards (Rossouw, 2003 and Lawrence 2005). The degree of
significance depends upon the nature (i.e. type, magnitude,
intensity, scale, probability and duration) of impacts and the
importance communities place on them (DEAT, 2002, Poder
& Canadian Environmental Agency, 2006). Poder (2006)
categorizes these into environmental concerns and business
concerns. The later is taken to include legal exposure, difficulty
and cost of changing the impact, effect on other activities and
processes, concern of interested parties and effect on public
image of the organization.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Identification of impacts
The most common method being employed is identification
of impacts based on literature and professional judgment. 76%
of the reports analysed had impacts being identified purely based
on professional judgment and reference to literature. The use
of conventional methods is limited to matrices, checklists, and
overlays, which is 19%, 5% of the reports respectively. However,
where conventional methods are used; they are used in
conjunction with professional judgment, such an approach is
desirable given that it aids in thoroughness and minimizes the
chances of omitting certain impacts either due to the shortcoming
of the methods employed. Combining the two also limited the
bias of the professionals who are conducting the impact
identification process. Table 1, summarizes use of different
impact identification methods.
Lawrence (2005) summaries approach for determination of
significance as, the technical, the collaborative, the reasoned
argumentation, as well as the general and composite approaches.
Scaling, weighting and aggregation of impact descriptors to
20
Zimbabwe International Journal of Open and Distance Learning
International Research Conference-Special Edition 2012
Identification Technique
Professional
Matrix and Overlays and
Judgement and professional professional
Literature
judgment
judgment
Reports
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
The MMET (1997;14) specifically requires that “… methods
used in carrying an EIA study must be documented in an EIA
report … these may include one or more of the general EIA
methods …” These methods include the matrix, checklist,
overlays and Geographic Information Systems (G.I.A) and
impact networks. Most of the reports therefore fail to meet the
requirements of the EIA guidelines provided by the review agent.
Checklist,
matrix and
professional
judgment
X
X
As a precursor to the determination of impact significance
the prediction of the identified impacts is required. Table three
shows that there is a lot of inconsistence in the use of impact
characteristics to predict the impacts. The following parameters
are mentioned in the reports; nature, spatial extent, reversibility,
duration, and magnitude. Table three shows the percentage of
reports that reflected that a particular impact characteristic was
considered in the E.I.A. process.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Characteristic of impact NOT considered % of reports Considered
% of reports
Direct/Indirect
100%
0
Cumulative
100%
0
Certainty
100%
0
Ease of mitigation
100%
0
Society input
81%
19%
Magnitude
90%
10%
Nature
+/-38%
62%
Duration
52%
48%
Reversibility
57%
43%
Spatial extent
52%
48%
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table One: Impact Identification Methods Being Employed
Table three: A summary of the impact characteristics that
are considered in the reports
Over reliance on professional judgment as a way of predicting
impacts as observed in this case has the tendency of overlooking
some impacts. The need for professional judgment in identifying
impacts is however important given that it does not take away
responsibility from the professional. It is therefore ideal to have
a mixture of professional judgment, public consultation and
use of technical methods as matrices, checklists, models and
overlays.
Use of professional judgment and literature as an approach
for identifying impacts was practiced throughout the period
2000 to 2005. Table 2 indicates a slight shift towards combining
professional judgment and the technical approaches from 2000
to 20005. However the trend is not obvious given the limited
number of cases that were studied (N=21) Statistical analysis
of the trend was therefore not conducted.
These impact characteristics fall short of the full list of impact
characteristics that is available in literature (MMET, 1997). In
addition the MMET (1997; 17) requires that “… a discussion
of the analytical methods used to forecast the impacts and …
the methods and criteria used to judge impact severity …” be
presented. The full list of the impacts characteristics that the
analysis expected is as follows, whether the impact is direct or
indirect, whether the impact is cumulative or not, whether the
impact is reversible or not, the nature of the impact that is
positive or negative, the duration of the impact that is how long
it persists, the ease of mitigation, societal considerations and
the spatial extent of the impact (Canadian Environmental
Agency, 2006; DEAT, 2002; MMET, 1997; and Rossouw,
2003).
Year
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005
X
X X X
Impact
Professional judgment
X
and literature
Identification Matrix and professional X
X
judgment
Technique
Overlays and
X
Professional judgment
X
Checklist, matrix and
professional judgement
Table 2: Trends on impact identification techniques from
2000 to 2005
Nature of impact and perceptions of the society are reflected
only in 29% of the reports as shown in table four. Other impact
parameters referred to are spatial extent, reversibility, duration
and magnitude. Use of impact descriptors in the EIA reports is
also very limited with only 43% of the reports referring to three
impact descriptors. Such a limited assessment of the impacts
cannot be seen to provide an adequate basis for determining
significance.
21
Zimbabwe International Journal of Open and Distance Learning
International Research Conference-Special Edition 2012
Combination of impact prediction parameters as shown in individual reports
Nature and
Spatial extent Spatial extent, Reversibility, Magnitude Magnitude,
Society
and nature
reversibility, & nature and
and duration nature and
duration
duration
duration
% Showing
combination
29%
19%
29%
14%
5%
5%
(NB. Total % adds up to 101 because of rounding off)
Table four: Impact characteristics referred to in predicting impacts
The desirable situation would be to move towards consideration of an increased number of impact parameters as the process is
improving over the years. However, as table 5 shows this is not the case, as there appears to be no increase in the number of impact
parameters referred to over the years. However, the impact parameters nature, spatial extent and reversibility of the impacts, are
consistently referred to very the years. Such a scenario suggests that the process is not guided by strict or clear guidelines on what
is to be considered at this stage of conducting the EIA. Though there is need for flexibility on the guidelines, an extreme where no
minimum is set and were everything goes is equally not advisable.
Year
Prediction
2000
X
Nature and Society
Spatial extent and nature
Spatial extent, reversibility, & Duration
Reversibility, nature and duration
Magnitude and Duration
Magnitude, nature and duration
X
X
2002
2003
X
X
X
2004
X
X
X
X
X
2005
X
X
X
X
Table Five: Impact prediction parameters between the years and 2000 and 2005.
With regards to the prediction of impacts, the impressions given by the EIA reports that there is inadequate prediction of the
impacts when compared with the number of impact parameters that can used for the task.
The understanding of significance postulated for in this study is where the impact parameters used in the prediction of impacts
are scaled, weighted and aggregated (DEAT, 2002, MMET, 1997; and Rossouws, 2003) Such a methodology provides a basis for
making of objective judgments and eliminating bias. The analysis of significance determination in the reports was therefore based
on such a background. The analysis revealed that 61% of the reports do not mention the concept of impact significance, while
impact significance is mentioned in 39% of the reports. Of the 39% reports where significance is determined 10% use statistical
methods to determine significant impacts whereas 29% use professional judgement to determine significance. The MMET (1997)
requires that a discussion of the analytical approaches used to judge severity be presented in the EIA report in addition to ranking
and weighting of impacts which is also suggested as an approach for determining impact significance. Based on this it can be said
that most of the reports fall of this requirement.
Statistical determination of significance involves taking the values obtained from scaling the impact parameters weighting them
and then aggregating. It is also noted that 81% of the reports do not take into consideration the societal input when coming up with
significant impacts. Such an approach deviates from the notion that impact significance is a concept that should consider both
societal values and scientific estimations.
It is, therefore, evident that most of the reports fall short of capturing the full concept of impact significance. It can however be
argued that professional judgment of significance refers largely to the legal framework of the impact and as such the legal framework
is based on societal values. Such an argument though valid to an extent does not capture the issue of significance and societal
values being varied in the spatial and temporal sense, hence the need for considering societal values separately at each assessment
if impact significance.
Table six shows that the number of reports that do not mention impact significance has remained fairly constant for the period
that was considered in the review, while the number of reports that used statistical methods to determine significance remained very
low. Significance determination based on professional judgment has been consistently low throughout the period under review.
2000
Significance Professional judgement
Statistical
Significance not mentioned
Total
1
3
4
2002
1
1
22
Year
2003
2
3
5
2004
1
1
4
6
2005
2
3
5
Total
6
2
13
21
Zimbabwe International Journal of Open and Distance Learning
International Research Conference-Special Edition 2012
Table Six : Variation of impact significance determination
methods between 2000 and 2005
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the Department of Natural
Resource’s Mashonaland West office for assistance with
information required for the study.
Conclusion
This paper has demonstrated that the impact prediction and
analysis stage of the EIA process as practiced in Zimbabwe is
to a large extent based on professional judgement. Reference to
conventional scientific methods is limited though the EIA
guidelines are explicit on these requirements. On predicting
impacts it is noted that reference is made to a limited list of
impact parameters, the prediction of the impacts as presented
in the reports is therefore inadequate. Noteworthy is lack of
input of society in determining biophysical impact significance.
The study concludes that though there is a strict requirement
with regards to the impact analysis stage the reports fall short
of meeting the requirements.
Reference
Bojorqueze-Tapia L.A., Eazcurra. E., and Garcia. O. 1998.
Appraisal of environmental impacts and mitigation
measures through mathematical matrices. Journal of
Environmental Management 53,91-99
Canadian Environmental Agency, 2006 Reference guide:
Determining whether a project is likey to cause
significant adverse environmental effects.
Canter, L.W. 1996. Environmental impact Assessment.
Second edition. New York: Megraw-hill, Inc
DEAT.2002. Screening, Information Series 5, Department of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). Pretoria
Duinker. N, and Beanlands G.E The significance of
environmental impacts: an exploration of the concept
Environmental Management Volume 10 number 1,1-10
1432-1009 online
Government of Zimbabwe, 2002. Environmental
Management Act (Chapter 20:27). Government Printers,
Harare
Poder. T, (2006). Evaluation of Environmental Aspects
Significance in ISO 14001. Environmental Management.
Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.2006.
Lawrence., D (1995) Significance criteria and determination
in sustainability-based Environmental Impact
Assessment. Final report for Machenzie Gas project
Joint Review Panel.
The Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism (1998)
Environmental impact Assessment training manual.
Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism, Harare.
The Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism (1997).
Environmental Impact Assessment Guide Lines
Ministry of Mines, Environment and Tourism, Harare.
ISBN 0-7974-1796-6 Ls
Recommendations
EIA should be viewed as a tool for integrating environmental
management; as such the impact analysis should provide the
necessary accurate information for management of impacts and
general decision-making. The study recommends the following
as a way of improving the EIA process;
* A minimum number of impact descriptors are made a
requirement in the reports.
* The reports should be required to reflect input of the public
in as far as determining the significant biophysical impacts.
* Adoption of a method of scaling weighting and aggregating
impact characteristics as a way of determining impact
significance is highly recommended, in addition to making
society input in biophysical impact significance
mandatory.
* Further research be conducted on ways of improving the
impact analysis stage of the EIA process with the aim of
seeking ways of incorporating the scaling/ranking
weighting and aggregating impact characteristics so as to
determine the significance of biophysical impacts and
ensuring public participation in the process.
23